321–330 of 340 posts
The I love when people have perfect names. The victims lawyers name is Ouchi. This is pretty tragic, reading the article there is no way this is an isolated incident
The I love when people have perfect names. The victims lawyers name is Ouchi. This is pretty tragic, reading the article there is no way this is an isolated incident
Wang, Oh, Ouchi... Asian names can be hilarious for an English speaker. The incident itself is not that hilarious on the other hand.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
2mg of E2 for only 13 days and he needs surgery? Sounds very much like something a lawyer would say. At most a few mm of development/widening of the areola with the start of development under. Not noticeable unless you are actually measuring them weekly. It is common enough that a someone will have to go off HRT after only a few weeks and anything underlying breast development will undo itself, but not the areola. Bu…
This is speculation but if the boy had higher levels of T his body could have already been producing a higher then average amount of estrogen.
I actually had blood drawn a couple of weeks ago to check for this very thing. I’m male, and while my testosterone levels are in the median range, my estrogen levels are very high relatively speaking. I’m operating under the assumption that it’s caused by recent weight gain - thanks, quarantine - so I’m working to lose that weight and will check it again.
Interestingly, there don’t seem to be many accepted options for reducing estrogen levels. My PCP suggested broccoli seed extract, but made it clear that it wasn’t a well-supported or accepted treatment. The most reliable treatment is a change of lifestyle.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You are correct in that such a low dose for a short period of time is unlikely to have major problems, but HRT is not a risk-free treatment. It increases risk of heart disease, stroke, blood clots and more.
If you are taking non-bioidentical hormones yes, but if you are taking bioidentical hormones it is a different story.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If a coach was doping teen athletes with test without their knowledge or coercing them in to it, hell even misleading them to do it, I'm pretty sure I would expect jail time, assault charges etc. And you would probably be in favour as well. But because attacking this feels like an attack on your political narrative you feel the need to spin it inside of it and downplay this. And don't even try the "this is a medical…
I think I'd support jail time for this abuse, FWIW (to be fair I've only read the one article). I'm reacting to the gendered reasoning among the poster above. It's bad because it's an unnecessary medical process used (apparently) as a punishment, not because it stole his manhood or whatever. I'm fine if you're super upset. But if you're MORE upset because of the gendering interaction, that's wrong. The poster above c…
I strongly disagree.
This isn’t about gender as a social construct. This is about a licensed medical professional causing significant changes to a person’s body without their consent.
Completely irrespective of how an individual perceives their own gender, that perception is a core part of who they are. So yes - I am absolutely more upset about this because of the “gendering interaction”. I would be equally upset if this person saw themselves as asexual or androgynous and was administered sex hormones without their consent.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think I'd support jail time for this abuse, FWIW (to be fair I've only read the one article). I'm reacting to the gendered reasoning among the poster above. It's bad because it's an unnecessary medical process used (apparently) as a punishment, not because it stole his manhood or whatever. I'm fine if you're super upset. But if you're MORE upset because of the gendering interaction, that's wrong. The poster above c…
It depends on the motivation, if it was ideologically motivated I would be outraged at the ideology that lead to it and people justifying it, just like I would be outraged at state of high school sports that lead to a coach doing this and people defending that. But I sort of agree, there is no proof this is ideological (in fact it sounds just as likely that the doctor was experimenting), the other guy is spinning it…
I don’t care at all what the doctor’s motivations were - I only care about their actions. In this case, those actions were taken without consent and had a significant negative impact on the patient. Whether they “meant well” or either of us agree with their motivation is completely irrelevant to me.
I understand that others see it differently, and that’s fine. My observation is that this disconnect is almost always always unstated and caused a ton of misunderstandings.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The commenter is underplaying it because the commenter has an agenda.
Can you enlighten me as to what you think my agenda is? For myself, I'm pretty sure I posted that comment so people who might otherwise like to frequent HN doesn't get the idea that the median poster here is a transphobe. Obviously I might be wrong about that, but someone needs to put in the effort.
This has literally nothing to do with trans issues, as far as I can see. It’s about medical intervention without informed consent.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You have made a series of claims, but not given any reasons to back them up. What theory of ethics/justice are you invoking, when you claim that retribution/deterrence is unethical and should not be a goal of our justice system. If a billionaire is found guilty of pedophilia, and offers to build for himself a lifetime "prison" that is really a 5-star resort, should he be allowed to do so? According to your argument,…
>>What theory of ethics/justice are you invoking Mainly Zero-Aggression principle, under which the only ethical use of force is for defense of either yourself or others, and only to the extent eliminate the aggressive force being applied. >>If a billionaire is found guilty of pedophilia, and offers to build for himself a lifetime "prison" that is really a 5-star resort, should he be allowed to do so? That is a strawm…
> That is a strawman and a red herring all in one. No a person should not be allowed to build their own guided cage
This is a direct implication of what you're proposing. The fact that you don't like the implication, doesn't make it a strawman.
You stated that the only goals of the criminal justice system should be rehabilitation, restitution and isolation. Allowing a billionaire pedophile to sequester themselves in a self-funded 5-star resort, is consistent with all of your stated goals, while still being minimally aggressive, and maximizing their welfare. If you find this objectionable, you need to revise your earlier claim.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You have made a series of claims, but not given any reasons to back them up. What theory of ethics/justice are you invoking, when you claim that retribution/deterrence is unethical and should not be a goal of our justice system. If a billionaire is found guilty of pedophilia, and offers to build for himself a lifetime "prison" that is really a 5-star resort, should he be allowed to do so? According to your argument,…
Saying retribution == deterrence is an extreme claim.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's always going to be confusing but I believe "transgender woman" is unambiguously someone assigned male gender at birth who identifies as a woman.
What if a biological male is assigned female gender at birth? Would they be transgender, or just female?
"Convincing a professional" is a reasonable proxy for biological sex, given that the cases that would fool a medical professional are in many (most?) cases sufficiently ambiguous that a reasonable person could take either side for what the biological sex is.